Republican politicians have a way with words. I don't know if it started with Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism," making fun of people who happened to notice that there was something wrong in the empire of Richard Nixon, but the deception of the public by seeming to say one thing and meaning another was already pervasive in the mid-seventies when "urban renewal" really meant that the inner cities were to be emptied of people and handed over to commercial interests.

More recently it's been "protection" and "security," as in "national security," that have served to disguise the wholesale violation of human and civil rights.

And the first-term Senator from Georgia, Clarence Saxby Chambliss seems to be one of the prime practitioners of deception.

Oddly enough, there's another Chambliss, William Chambliss, who's made a study of what he calls State-Organized Crime. As far as I know, William is not related to Clarence, who, for some reason, prefers to be known by his middle name, Saxby, but the latter, in sponsoring the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, has effectively pre-empted foreign governments from prosecuting Americans for criminal acts committed in their lands by challenging their jurisdiction and sovereign rights,

§ 3261. Criminal offenses committed by certain members of the Armed Forces and by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States

(a) Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States—

(1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States; or,

(2) while a member of the Armed Forces subject to chapter 47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military Justice),

shall be punished as provided for that offense.

with the bolded qualification in part (b):

(b) No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the United States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General (or a person acting in either such capacity), which function of approval may not be delegated.

That is, persons associated with the American military can only be prosecuted for crimes in foreign lands, if the U.S. government agrees. This is, of course, one of the issues being contested by the government of Iraq, whose people have been subject to rape and pillaging and worse by the horde of "security" contractors which has accompanied the U.S. invasion forces.

It seems noteworthy that in sponsoring the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, Congressman Clarence Saxby Chambliss demonstrated, if nothing else, exemplary foresight in providing cover for Americans in foreign lands before the invasion of Iraq was even contemplated. While it's quite possible that the majority of his colleagues who voted to approve this legislation were somehow convinced that American law is in all instances superior when it comes to protecting human and civil rights, that's not quite how it's turned out in practice. It seems that even in crimes committed against other Americans, the punishments for rape and murder have little deterrent value. It's no wonder that most instances of sexual assault aren't prosecuted at all.

Having come into Congress with the Gingrich class of 1994, Clarence Saxby Chambliss managed to make a name for himself on national security matters and, indeed, conducted the first "investigation" of the intelligence failures on the part of the CIA and the National Security Agency in the years and months leading up to the attacks in 2001. Then, subsequent to Chambliss' surprise election to the Senate, it was this expertise which presumably leap-frogged him into a spot on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which still hasn't released its full findings.

Perhaps that's why the CIA found it worthwhile to honor one of its most persistent critics

Immediately following the tragic attacks, Chambliss’ House subcommittee conducted a thorough investigation and released the first comprehensive report detailing critical shortfalls within the United States intelligence community’s performance and technological capabilities. In May of 2006, Chambliss was honored with the CIA Director’s Award by the Director of Central Intelligence. Recognized for his “extraordinary fidelity and essential service” to the CIA, Chambliss received the agency’s highest award.

Either he done good covering up their malfeasance or he's really good at playing a version of the "limited hangout" game--i.e. raising an objection to a proposal or "confessing concern" (in the case of Michael Hayden that he was a military man) to pre-empt consideration of more relevant matters.

For example, that back in 1999

Hayden is a relentless cheerleader for the NSA in print and on television. He makes speeches to civic groups and political organizations, gives interviews, and even hosts off-the-record dinner parties for the press at his home in Fort Meade. His thrust is twofold -- that the NSA is committed to complying with the law, and the agency is struggling to remain relevant in the new Information Age of the Internet, cell phones, Blackberry wireless data terminals, and general information overload. The NSA is manfully playing catchup, Hayden asserts, and too behind the curve to even attempt to spy on Americans. In 2000, he tells an audience at American University, "Despite what you've seen on television, our agency doesn't do alien autopsies, track the location of your automobile by satellite, nor do we have a squad of assassins. ...The best I can hope for now is to wipe away some of the mystique surrounding the National Security Agency."

Indeed that's a pattern we might recognize in the persistent coverage of Chambliss' smears of Cleland's military service, which is supposed to have turned a five point lead in the polls into a defeat, while the important issue, Cleland's opposition (with good reason, as we now know) to the Homeland Security agenda, continues to be overlooked. And nobody even asks what part Chambliss had in compiling the pernicious, un-Constitutional provisions of the Patriot Act in the first place. Is the Clarence Saxby Chambliss smear of Cleland on the same level of distraction as the blue dress, McCain's POW status, Rudy Giuliani's 9/11, and George Bush's WMD? I leave that for you to decide. What seems obvious to me is that Clarence Saxby Chambliss, in addition to wanting to privatize Social Security, denying health insurance to children, increasing the cost of college funds, failing to outfit the troops with protective equipment, promoting government spying on citizens, and promoting military hardware over people, has undermined the very essence of the rule of law by legalizing criminal behavior. Indeed, that's what immunity of any kind is about. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act may well have been the first step in the destruction of America's moral authority.